D&D General Do you care about lore?

[cbwjm]

This came up in one of the Ravenloft threads and I am just curious: do you care about official aka "canon" lore for D&D, either the implied setting or a specific campaign world? Does it bother you if that lore is changed with editions? Should a new version of a setting be "required" to not contradict a previous version?

For my part, I don't care much at all. Chances are I am going to change some stuff anyway if I am using a published setting and if I am homebrewing chances are the stuff in the Monster Manual or whatever isn't relevant in the first place. I don't read novel lines or pour over setting books, so I probably wouldn't notice most changes anyway.

I sort of care, I love reading setting information and I'm sometimes disappointed by the changes for a setting between editions but usually there is something in there that I also like. This was the case with the 4e FR, I felt it was too big a change, but it also had some really cool ideas in it, I loved the floating city of Airspur and the plaguetouched (I think that's the term, the people with powers gained from the spellplague) and I'd be inclined to keep these aspects in 5e if I was playing in the FR.

I've found that I don't always like how the lore fits the mechanics of a new edition. This was the case with the sorcerer and dragonlance in 3e. I guess it would be an easy swap of intelligence instead of charisma for the casting stat as well as the creation of spell schools to fit the age of mortals style of sorcery.

I mostly play in homebrew settings so it isn't so much of an issue for me, though I would like to get back to dragonlance and might set my next campaign there.

 

[Alzrius]

or the Lord of Necropolis novel)?

Actually, Lord of the Necropolis was near-totally brought back into canon by Death Undaunted. That was literally John W. Mangrum's goal when he wrote it (that and bringing Azalin back), and while the module itself was never finished due to the licensing deal WotC struck with White Wolf, the 3E Ravenloft setting was still written under the assumption that Death Undaunted happened, and referred to it more than once over the course of the line.

 

[Remathilis]

Actually, Lord of the Necropolis was near-totally brought back into canon by Death Undaunted. That was literally John W. Mangrum's goal when he wrote it (that and bringing Azalin back), and while the module itself was never finished due to the licensing deal WotC struck with White Wolf, the 3E Ravenloft setting was still written under the assumption that Death Undaunted happened, and referred to it more than once over the course of the line.

I was under the impression Lord of Necropolis was noncanon due to basically explaining the Dark Powers in far more detail than was wanted. Then again, I wasn't keeping up with the lore by the time 3e RL was coming out, so the fact an unpublished module brought it back made it easy to escape my notice...

 

[Voadam]

AS A BRAND, D&D has an obligation to provide a mostly uniform experience.

Dragonlance not having half orcs in 1e or standard halflings or forest gnomes was arguably still a mostly uniform experience D&D.

The MtG D&D settings arguably provide a mostly uniform D&D experience comparable to the differences between Eberron and default D&D.

 

[Alzrius]

I was under the impression Lord of Necropolis was noncanon due to basically explaining the Dark Powers in far more detail than was wanted.

That's why I linked to it. The details are all in there, but basically that last part of the story was explained away as "Azalin's discorporation made it difficult for him to think straight, and he had a lot of crazy dreams before he started literally pulling himself back together."

 

[jmartkdr2]

I sort of care, I love reading setting information and I'm sometimes disappointed by the changes for a setting between editions but usually there is something in there that I also like. This was the case with the 4e FR, I felt it was too big a change, but it also had some really cool ideas in it, I loved the floating city of Airspur and the plaguetouched (I think that's the term, the people with powers gained from the spellplague) and I'd be inclined to keep these aspects in 5e if I was playing in the FR.

I've found that I don't always like how the lore fits the mechanics of a new edition. This was the case with the sorcerer and dragonlance in 3e. I guess it would be an easy swap of intelligence instead of charisma for the casting stat as well as the creation of spell schools to fit the age of mortals style of sorcery.

I mostly play in homebrew settings so it isn't so much of an issue for me, though I would like to get back to dragonlance and might set my next campaign there.

4e FR is a great case study in the limits of changing a setting for a new edition.

Adding in tieflings was probably okay, but dragonborn were a bridge too far for too may. The Spellplauge was a really neat idea for a campaign (in any setting), but making it a default for a setting as opposed to an event was possibly a mistake. Doing that and the god stuff was a bit much. Etc.

 

[Argyle King]

I think lore can be a good thing if it builds a shared foundation of understanding for a group of people attempting to play a story-driven game.

Lore is why a group of people can sit down at a game store and understand what elves, dwarves, and orcs are without much problem. There may be some minor discussion such as "these orcs are more like LoTR than Warhammer" or "the dwarves in this setting have a caste system similar to Dragon Age, but the elves are cliche forest and bow types."

So, from the perspective of selling an established brand or setting, I think lore has importance: much in the way that Star Wars and Star Trek have very different lore and fan groups who identify with that lore. Changes and deviations can (and do) occur, but it is also possible for a change to be perceived as violating the foundations of the story and what came before (as is arguably the case with some versions of both Star Wars and Star Trek).

I do not believe that lore should serve to shackle the creativity of a home game or disrupt the fun of a group. In one of my home settings, I use very different versions of races and monsters. Both myself and the people I have played with in that setting have fun with it. However, once certain things about the setting have been explained/established, I prefer consistency so as to facilitate the shared understanding I mentioned above.

There is a balance.
I think an established story's lore has value.
I also think that telling your own story shouldn't be hampered by the idea that your lore must fit someone else's idea.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've always believed that retcons should explain, expand, and/or justify the past, not rewrite it. Make new material, don't change old material into something completely different and keep the same names. It's crass and materialistic, IMO. I love lore, and I think of it as the story of the setting. Of course the accuracy isn't perfect from edition to edition, but trying to maintain setting consistency is a virtue worth upholding. Of course, I can and do use bits of existing lore from anywhere and everywhere to enhance my homebrew games, so there's value in new lore wherever it comes from to me.

 

[robus]

The main thing I hate about FR (beside it being a Disneyworld-esque setting) is just the massive amount of lore about it. To my mind it just bogs the whole thing down and for players I can’t imagine having another adventure in such a well-trammeled place.

Give me the wide-open vistas of an unfamiliar world where land and history are ripe for discovery.

 

[Oofta]

I run games in my own campaign world, so for my campaign the lore matters. I pay extra attention to details and recording major decisions so that I can maintain consistency. I want someone to tell a story from 2 editions ago and the lore still matches.

But when I'm playing in other campaigns? Meh. As long as it's reasonably consistent we're good.